Posted on 08/26/2002 12:07:40 PM PDT by PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
Well folks, it time we started our own Feel Good private party! This is for all us Bible Thumpers! :)
Lets hear how God has blessed y'all in your life today, last week, heck the whole year, feel free to give your personal Testimony and what God has done in your life and is doing right now.
The Lord saved my worthless hide 3 1/2 years ago, thru the simple Gospel in the Bible, Praise God!!! I can say I've had more blessed times that bad times since then, but even the bad times were a blessing....all things work together for them that Love Him.
I've been involved in witnessing and setting up Bible studys to all my friends and family since I was saved, some have been saved because of Gods work thru me, Praise God give Him the Glory, God is Good, and some have not as of yet, but who but God knows which one will come to Him in their own time of trouble, because His Word has been planted in their hearts.
Praise God He saw fit to Give us His Word and His Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth!
BigMack
THE IDENTIFICATION OF BELSHAZZAR In the fifth chapter of Daniel Belshazzar is called the "son of Nebuchadnezzar," and is said to have been "king" of Babylon and to have been slain on the night in which the city was taken. But according to the other historians he was the son of Nabonidus, who was then king, and who is known to have been out of the city when it was captured, and to have lived some time afterwards.
Here, certainly, there is about as glaring an apparent discrepancy as could be imagined. Indeed, there would seem to be a flat contradiction between profane and sacred historians. But in 1854 Sir Henry Rawlinson found, while excavating in the ruins of Mugheir (identified as the site of the city of Ur, from which Abraham emigrated), inscriptions which stated that when Nabonidus was near the end of his reign he associated with him on the throne his eldest son, Bil-shar-uzzur, and allowed him the royal title, thus making it perfectly credible that Belshazzar should have been in Babylon, as he is said to have been in the Bible, and that he should have been called king, and that he should have perished in the city while Nabonidus survived outside. That he should have been called king while his father was still living is no more strange than that Jehoram should have been appointed by his father, Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, seven years before his father's death (see 2 Kings 1:17 and 8:16), or that Jotham should have been made king before his father, Uzziah, died of leprosy, though Uzziah is still called king in some of the references to him.
That Belshazzar should have been called son of Nebuchadnezzar is readily accounted for on the supposition that he was his grandson, and there are many things to indicate that Nabonidus married Nebuchadnezzar's daughter, while there is nothing known to the contrary. But if this theory is rejected, there is the natural supposition that in the loose use of terms of relationship common. among Oriental people "son" might be applied to one who was simply a successor. In the inscriptions on the monuments of Shalmaneser II, referred to below, Jehu, the extirpator of the house of Omri, is called the "son of Omri."
The status of Belshazzar implied in this explanation is confirmed incidentally by the fact that Daniel is promised in verse 6 the "third" place in the kingdom, and in verse 29 is given that place, all of which implies that Belshazzar was second only.
Thus, what was formerly thought to be an insuperable objection to the historical accuracy of the Book of Daniel proves to be, in all reasonable probability, a mark of accuracy. The coincidences are all the more remarkable for being so evidently undesigned
I understand that the colophon at the end of Sinaiticus admits that its OT comes from LXX in Origen's Hexapla. Which begs this question: If the Septuagint was so commonplace among NT writerss, as its propagators claim, then why would the writers of Sinaiticus have to go to Origen's Hexapla to find it? They went to the origenal source --
I note that Colliers stated that the 'Septuagint reached virtual completion before the Christian era'!
It looks like they see the evidence mounting that there was no BC Septuagint.
The Septuagint was suppose to have existed as a translation in the 3rd century BC, not coming to together by the 1st century A.D.,.
Even the critics now concede that the Septuagint was a series of books that were unevenly translated at different periods, and thus never constituted a single translation in the BC era.
As I said, you need to keep up with textual history.
The few that the Septuagint existed in the BC is a traditional view, not a true one.
Some myths die hard.
Note the manuscript evidence for the BC Septuagint, there is none!
What you have is a few scraps from the Torah, none of which are quoted by anyone in the New Testament.
Josephus, an apostate Jew, gives the number and order of books as depicted in the Jewish Canon, and never quotes from either the Septuagint or Apocrypha.
5. THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THERE WAS ACTUALLY A PRE-CHRISTIAN ERA SEPTUAGINT
http://www.biblebelievers.net/BibleVersions/kjcforv1.htm
Paul Kahle (a famous OT scholar) who has done extensive work in the Septuagint does not believe that there was one original old Greek version and that consequently the manuscripts of the Septuagint (so-called) cannot be traced back to one archetype. The theory, proposed and developed largely by him, is that the LXX had its origin in numerous oral, and subsequently written translations for use in the services after the reading of the Hebrew original. Later an official standardized version of the Law was made, but did not entirely replace the older versions, while for the rest of the books there never was a standard Jewish translation, but only a variety of versions (Gooding).
Peter Ruckman (in the Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidences) has taken a similar position. His argument can be summarized as follows :
The letter of Aristeas is mere fabrication (Kahle calls it propaganda), and there is no historical evidence that a group of scholars translated the OT into Greek between 250 - 150 BC
The research of Paul Kahle shows that there was no pre-Christian LXX.
No one has produced a Greek copy of the Old Testament written before 300 AD - Page 14 -
In fact, the Septuagint "quotes" from the New Testament and not vice versa, i.e. in the matter of NT - OT quotation, the later formulators of the Greek OT made it conform with the New Testament Text.
He then states further, "The nearest thing to an Old Testament Greek Bible anyone has found was the Ryland Papyrus (No. 458), which had a few portions of Deuteronomy 23 - 28 on it. And even this piece of papyrus was dated 150 BC (he later says this date is questioned), fifty to one hundred years later than the writing of the so-called Septuagint.
What scholars refer to as "Septuagint papyri" are 24 pieces of paper, written 200 years after the death of Christ. These fragments are as follows:
Pieces of Genesis written 200 - 400 AD: Berlin Genesis
Pieces of Genesis written 200 - 400 AD: Amherst.
Pieces of Genesis written 200 - 400 AD: British Museum.
Pieces of Genesis written 200 - 400 AD: Oxyrhyncus.
A Bodleian papyrus leaf 600 - 750 AD, containing part of Song of Solomon.
An Amherst papyrus 600 - 700 AD, containing part of Job 1 and 2.
An Amherst papyrus 400 - 550 AD, containing parts of Psalm 5.
Fragmenta Londinensia 600 - 75O AD, in British Museum, containing parts of Psalm 10, 18, 20 - 34.
British Museum "230" 220 - 300 AD, containing Psalm 12:7-l5:4.
A Berlin papyrus 250 - 400 AD, containing Psalm 40:26-41:4.
Oxyrhyncus papyrus "845" 300 - 500 AD, containing parts of Psalm 68, 70.
Amherst papyrus 600 - 700 AD, parts of Psalm 108, 118, 135, 138, 139, 140.
Leipzig papyrus 800 AD, contains part of the Psalms.
Heidelberg Codex 600 - 700 AD, containing Zechariah 4:6 - Malachi 4:5.
Oxyrhyncus "846" 500 - 600 AD, contains part of Amos 2.
A Rainer papyrus 200 - 300 AD, contains part of Isa. 38.
A Bodleian papyrus 200 - 300 AD, contains part of Ezekiel 5,6.
The Rylands papyri: Deuteronomy 2,3 1300 - 1400 AD
The Rylands papyri: Job 1,5,6, 500 - 700 AD,
The Rylands papyri: Psalm 90 400 - 600 AD
The Oxyrhyncus volumes have parts of : Exodus 21 200 - 300 AD
Exodus 22:40 200 - 300 AD
Genesis 16 200 - 300 AD
Genesis 31 300 - 400 AD
Thus Ruckman believes that. manuscript evidence for a pre-Christian LXX is totally lacking.
Other important manuscripts containing large portions of the Greek OT are as follows :
Codex Vaticanus (B), 350 AD, Vatican Library. - Page 15 -
Codex Alexandrinus (A), 450 AD, British Museum, Unger says it follows Origen's Hexapla.
Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph), 350 AD, British Museum.
Regarding these three famous manuscripts (which will be looked at more thoroughly when we come to the NT text), Gooding summarizes, "even the great uncials B, A, and Aleph are not immune from pre-Origen revision. Vaticanus follows the Hexapla in Isaiah while in Judges it represents a 4th century AD revision. Generally, however, it is a copy (a poor one, as its numerous emissions show) of a text critically revised according to the best evidence available early in the Christian era. Hence it sometimes presents a text purer than that of still earlier papyri ...
Alexandrinus has suffered far more from revision. Sinaiticus, generally speaking, holds a position midway between B and A."
Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C), 5th century, Bibliotheque Nationale Paris. The text on sixty-four OT leaves have been erased to make room for a treatise for St. Ephraim of Syria in the 12th century. It is thus a palimpsest and the underlying Biblical text can be deciphered only with great difficulty.
Septuagint manuscripts are quite numerous in the world's libraries. The earliest are called uncial (large lettered) and the later, cursives (small flowing script). There are about 240 uncial manuscripts now in existence (containing mainly small portions of the OT) (Unger).
With this basic manuscript evidence before him, the student is better able to consider whether there was a pre-Christian era Greek OT. The majority feel there was, though Kenyon says, "It must be admitted that Kahle makes out a very strong case."
Those who still maintain that there was a BC Septuagint do so because they do not want to give up the myth.
However, they cannot prove there was one.
No Apocrypha books were part of any BC Septuagint, if one existed.
The 'Septuagint' we have today is from 'B' and 'Aleph' and has no BC linage.
Nothing from the BC can be found to represent a complete Septuagint Bible.
As shown above, scholars state that the fifth column of Origen's Hexapla is the Septuagint revised by Origen. Ruckman, however, says that the so-called LXX in fact originates with Origen's fifth column. I assume by this he means that the 5th column is based on and constructed from the versions in the other columns. Thus, according to Ruckman, the "LXX" does not appear until the Hexapla is completed in 245 AD. Further, as the Apocrypha has always been "part and parcel" of the Septuagint, it is remarkable that it is in the fifth column that it appears. Thus, we believe, this fifth column has been a leading source of OT corruption and had a huge influence on Jerome's Latin Vulgate and its inclusion of the Apocrypha (380 AD). Regarding the Apocrypha, Kenyon says, "The Greek Old Testament includes a number of books which apparently circulated in the Greek-speaking world (led by Alexandria) and obtained equal acceptance with the canonical books. These never obtained entrance to the Hebrew Canon." Thus Alexandria and its "greatest" teacher Origen are the impetus for bringing the Apocrypha into the Bible. At this writing, I cannot find any clear information to show that the Apocrypha was part of any Bible prior to the Hexapla. It does survive in some Old Latin Version manuscripts, but see the discussion on that version.
The best book to read on this subject is The Septuagint, A Critical Analysis, by Floyd Jones
He lists the only BC evidence for the Septuagint as
John Rylands Library P.Gr.458 (2nd Century.B.C.) Deu.23:24-24:3;25:1-3;26:12,7-19,28:31-33,
Papyrus Frouad 266, Cairo, 2nd or 1st century B.C.) part of Deu.31:28-32:7.
Yes, the story of Aristas (72 Jews came to Alexandra and produced the Septugaint). is stated to be a myth.
The letter itself is said to be dated in the 2nd century B.C. 150 year after the supposed time the LXX was suppose to have been translated.
The history of the origin of this translation was embellished with various fables at so early a period... We need not wonder that but little is known with accuracy on the on this subject; for, with regard to the ancient versions of the Septuagint in general, we possess no information (emphasis added) as to the use place of their execution, or by whom they were made, we simply find such versions in use at particular times, and thus we gather the fact (emphasis added) that they must have been previously executed...(introduction, 1, Septuagint Version of the Old Testament, 1970))
One comment, there is no fact that a Septuagint was ever used anywhere by anybody!
I understand that the colophon at the end of Sinaiticus admits that its OT comes from LXX in Origen's Hexapla. Which begs this question: If the Septuagint was so commonplace among NT writerss, as its propagators claim, then why would the writers of Sinaiticus have to go to Origen's Hexapla to find it? They went to the origenal source --
As you are implying, there was no BC original.
The Septuagint is 'B' and 'Aleph', and that is the translation we have today.
Is there something like "Textual Criticism Monthly" that we can subscribe to? I'm actually being serious, I would love to know where you get all this stuff.
http://www.biblebelievers.net/BibleVersions/kjcforv1.htm
It is by Thomas Holland
Below deals with manuscripts
http://home.att.net/~av-swordfighter/mss_evidence_contents.html
This is his home site
http://members.aol.com/Logos1611/index.htmle site
If you have any questions feel free to ask.
Experience dealing with Catholics support that many do not read their Bible. I'm married to a former Catholic. Until she left the Church, she hardly ever picked up a Bible.
My Mother-in-law is Catholic, and she seems to think that we have gotten wrapped up into some kind of cult since we actually read the Bible and directly question our Pastor rather than just accept the teachings the Priest gives. She actually told us the other night that the Bible was just a bunch of stories, and that we couldn't trust these writtings as they were of man, but that the teachings of the Catholic church were superior and correct
My father-in -law will not even approach the subject with us.
I have a brother-in-law who claims to be Catholic, but in the whole time I have known him (10+ years), I have never seen a bible at his house.
Pretty much my wifes entire side of the family are Catholic, and many of my encounters with them have expressed the same thoughts.
Where did you get that figure from?
There are passages that appear to have been taken from the Septuagint, but nowhere near 65%!
The passages (Floyd Jones lays them out side by side with the Hebrew) are from the Hebrew (sometimes freely translated, as in Heb.10:5 cf to Ps 40:6).
Origen had a New Testament in front of him and copied the translations back into the Septuagint so it would appear as if they were taken from it.
If what you are proposing were found to be true, it would have significant implications for Protestants as well as Catholics. We would no longer be able to consider the NT inerrant, the apostles would be proven to be benighted, basic Christian doctrines such as the Virgin Birth (on which I hope we all agree) would be proven to be based on a mistranslation and so invalid.
That is nonsense.
We get our Old Testament Scriptures from the Hebrew and that is what the Apostles quoted from, not a Greek Seputagint that did not exist.
For reliance of NT on LXX text see the following very balanced paper which is in no way a discussion of the OT canon: www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/Septuagint/spexecsum.htm
Thank you. The NT did not depend on what did not exist! Are you sure that your research is not taken from an anti-Christian, liberal/deconstructor web-site?
What I am saying is that the story that the letter told is a myth, and that the existence of a BC Septuagint is a myth also.
You might have had some books from the Torah that were translated into Greek for private use, but no entire Greek Old Testament ever existed in the BC
The reason that some of the verses match so well with the 'Septuagint' is because Origen had the New Testament and copied the New Testament into the Septuagint.
To have had the Apostles use the Septuagint, you would have to had a Septuagint existing in their day, which it did not.
The Books they quoted from were the Hebrew Canon (Jerome was correct) and as is the right of any author (the Holy Spirit) sometimes the Old Testament quotation was altered to meet New Testaments needs.
Most of the Books of the Septuagint are poorly translated,( as acknowledged by the critics) and the Apostles would not use such junk even if it did exist!
Now, if you want to continue to believe in a BC Septuagint, that the Apostles used, feel free to do so.
There is no manuscript evidence to support your view of a BC Septuagint.
There is no Greek word in the Septuagint Concordence that is earlier the 120 AD!
The Septuagint we have today is from Origen in the 3rd century and the 'quotes' of the New Testament that match his Septuagint, match it because he made them match!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.